Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I have that I don't use anymore. It is a nice lens.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

Thanks. It was meant as a question to help him think out his purchase and make sure he gets the most bang for his buck out of which ever lens he buys. I try to make myself go through that process to hopefully avoid the impulse mechanism that I can have on a purchase.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I wish I had been that smart since I began this hobby in retirement.

At least that what my wife says.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

Did you notice the operative word "try" in my post? That indicates an attempt, not always success! I also have woodworking as a hobby. I have high test GAS with both photography and woodworking. However, my wife and I have an agreement. I don't ask her about all of her needlework and craft purchases and she doesn't ask me about my photography and woodworking. We're both retired with separate incomes so we pay the household bills together and then she has her money and I have mine. Eliminates a lot of marital stress!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Theoretically at least, we have the same situation. It must be the rolling eye syndrome of hers that elicits some trace of guilt. Way down, deep...just one more lens...

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

I've learned to replicate that look as well as improve on my variety of meaningful grunts.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

It is, and was my #2 walk around lens when I had a Dx body. If you do not have one, look at the SIgma 18-35 f/1.8 ART. Great for landscape and for night shots.

jerrym

I picked up the original version of the 18-200 VR a few months ago to use on my Nikon d7000 and D90. I liked it so much as a walk around lens that I bought another D90 just to keep it on. I am very pleased with the D90 and 18-200 combo and use it instead of the original 18-55. The added length is a great benefit. Hope this helps you decide

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

For landscape photography specifically, I would find the short to moderately long telephoto, 56-200mm range of focal lengths that lens would give you next to worthless. It certainly wouldn't be my choice!

While some landscape photography can be done with telephotos, that's rather specialized. Your images will be much better if you get closer to those mountains, shooting through less atmosphere and incorporate some foreground objects in the images. To do that, personally I find wide angle lenses MUCH more useful for landscape photography. Your 16-85mm only goes "moderately wide", so I'd recommend an AF-P Nikkor 10-20mm DX VR lens instead. It's reasonably compact, light weight and affordable at around $300.

Now, 10mm versus 16mm doesn't sound like a lot... but at the wide angle end of things, a single millimeter makes noticeable difference. (It wouldn't, in the telephoto range.)

I'm assuming AF-P lenses are compatible with D3300.... I don't know for certain, so be sure to check compatibility charts on Nikon websites and elsewhere.

If not compatible, instead look at some of the third party ultrawides such as the Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 (rather large/heavy), Tokina 12-28mm f/4 (more reasonable size/weight, though still heavier than the Nikkor 10-20mm), Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 (another rather large/heavy lens) or the Tamron 10-24mm "VC". All these are current models being offered.

Nikon also offers the AF-S 10-24mm and AF-S 12-24mm Nikkors... But both of those are ridiculously expensive. As AF-S lenses, I am certain both are fully compatible with your camera. But unless you get a "steal" on a used one in good shape, at double the price and more of some of the other lenses mentioned here, they are VERY pricey.

If you shop used, you'll also find older Tokina 11-16mm and 12-24mm models.... Those are quite decent, well built lenses but you need to be aware that for use on Nikon D3300 you would need the "II" versions of either, if you want autofocus. The sometimes-cheaper original versions of those lenses do not have a built-in focusing motor, so would be manual-focus-only on your camera. The "II" versions of each have the in-lens motor, so will be able to autofocus. These are all discontinued models (replaced by the two Tokina models above), so you're less likely to see them anywhere other than the used market, though I have noticed occasional "new old stock" of all four models.

Also sometimes seen on the used market, there also were much earlier Tamron 11-18mm (not a very good lens) and earlier Tamron 10-24mm non-VC (a bit better, tho not as good as the newer VC version). There also have been a smaller/lighter Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 (discontinued) and a more expensive, extremely wide angle Sigma 8-16mm (still in production, but with much more perspective exaggeration). Finally there is Sigma's 12-24mm (both current "Art" and one or two earlier versions), but that's actually a much more expensive full frame (FX) lens and would be somewhat of a waste of money to use on a DX camera like yours.

Something else I find invaluable for landscape photography is a high quality circular polarizer filter. It serves many purposes... reducing reflections off water and foliage, richer and more saturated colors, deeper blue skies and more. The effect can be uneven using one with an ultrawide lens (depends upon the position of the sun), but that can be worked with or worked around. I recommend B+W XS-Pro or F-Pro CPL in whatever size is needed for the lens you choose. For example, the Nikkor10-20mm uses 72mm filters, which cost around $80 in those B+W series... the XS-Pro is a "slim" filter, which might be needed to prevent vignetting on some ultrawides.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

I would recommend that you consider this Nikon DX lens. https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-dx-nikkor-18-140mm-f%252f3.5-5.6g-ed-vr.html
It's the 18-140mm and has very good ratings for clarity and quality. Gives you the landscape focal lengths, but also give you a reasonable zoom reach with the 140mm without pushing to optics more to the long tele end and a good walk around lens. It's MSRP is $499.95 and I'm sure you can find a better price this time of the year.

CO

I also have the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6. You should keep it. It has one-half the distortion of the 18-200mm. Ken Rockwell did a comparison of the 16-85mm versus the 18-200mm. Look at the third photo he posted in the comparison review. If you sweep the cursor on and off the image, it will switch between the 16-85mm and 18-200mm photos. The 18-200mm has more distortion. I stay away from superzoom lenses for that reason.

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm

traderjohn Loc: New York City

For years I had a D90 with that lens. It is the best of both worlds. I thought then and still do it is a very good lens.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

If that lens has the "Silent Wave Motor" SWM built in then it is fine. If not then it will not focus or change apertures automatically. If I read the Nikon Lens Comparison chart correctly... that lens should be good. I would verify though.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

He tested the old VR, not the newer VR II.